Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Recommended Posts

44 minutes ago, Mighty_Zuk said:

2 question on that placard.

What is CPS (in the FCS category), and what do they mean by semi auto loading, if all the ammo is unitary?

 

My guess is that it works the same way than in the Leclerc where you can ask the autoloader to load the same type of ammunition immediately after firing and keep doing it until it exhaust this type of ammo, or tell the autoloader to keep the chamber empty until you press the button to ask for one type of ammo to be loaded.

 

Either the autoloader will load on it's own without any input (auto) or you'll have to press a button to ask the autoloader to load once and then standby until you press the button again (semi-auto).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

SmarTruck III

   In the next version of the car returned to the biaxial chassis - the base was laid by MRAP International MXT. Armored car equipped with a set of navigation and communication tools, a complex for monitoring the terrain with cameras, directional microphones, night vision and laser rangefinder, as well as the Internet connectivity.

It is possible to install an active protection system and a retractable remote installation with a large-caliber machine gun, which was equipped with an "anti-sniper system".

   The crew consists of four people: driver, gunner, the surveillance operator and the communications operator. Each has 20-inch displays and tablets.

5Kmp5WLBz-E.jpg

 

Spoiler

9p6TQzDgRDo.jpg

 

Fq--F2ri6Is.jpg

 

Zi0O6jJxeWU.jpg

 

UmVdpxRiskU.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe i should create a "Toimisto's stupid questions" thread but before that i will keep polluting here, So is there any reason why after WW2 USA kept using vision blocks instead of Periscopes on its Commanders cupolas? ogorkiewicz mentions that they usually have a greater field of view and resolution but does not go much beyond that. With Japanese tanks they kept using them even on the Type-74.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/22/2018 at 8:20 AM, Toimisto said:

Maybe i should create a "Toimisto's stupid questions" thread but before that i will keep polluting here, So is there any reason why after WW2 USA kept using vision blocks instead of Periscopes on its Commanders cupolas? ogorkiewicz mentions that they usually have a greater field of view and resolution but does not go much beyond that. With Japanese tanks they kept using them even on the Type-74.

 

Cheaper, wider FOV and less distortion are the advantages I've heard.  Making a really optically excellent periscope is a non-trivial problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Collimatrix said:

 

Cheaper, wider FOV and less distortion are the advantages I've heard.  Making a really optically excellent periscope is a non-trivial problem.

Just to elaborate on this-

In a direct-vision block, you have a single* block of glass through which you look, with a short overall distance. In a simple unity periscope, you have 2 reflective components (whether they be mirrors or prisms), and the optical path is pretty long. Looking through a periscope is like looking through a pipe- your field of vision is much narrower than you'd expect, unless you have some special optical trickery* (like submarine periscopes, which have built-in telescopic lenses and split-lense rangefinders and shit). Also, generally speaking, flat vision blocks** are easier to control dimensionally in manufacture than prism heads, leading to less optical fuckery like distortion and abberation and shit.

Prism-based periscopes may also have more glass than vision blocks, whixh impedes light transmission and gives a darker image.

*Many modern periscopes have larger objective prisms than eye prisms to reduce the "looking down a pipe" effect.

** may actually be several layers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Japanese medium tanks Type 97 of the 9th Armor Regiment of the 1st Armor Division of the Japanese Army, photographed by American troops during the fighting for Saipan;  June-July 1944

9884090_original.jpg

 

Spoiler

9884404_original.jpg

 

9884620_original.jpg

 

9884879_original.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

    • By LostCosmonaut
      Originally posted by Rossmum on SA;
       

       
      Looks pretty good for the time.
    • By Collimatrix
      Shortly after Jeeps_Guns_Tanks started his substantial foray into documenting the development and variants of the M4, I joked on teamspeak with Wargaming's The_Warhawk that the next thing he ought to do was a similar post on the T-72.
       
      Haha.  I joke.  I am funny man.
       
      The production history of the T-72 is enormously complicated.  Tens of thousands were produced; it is probably the fourth most produced tank ever after the T-54/55, T-34 and M4 sherman.
       
      For being such an ubiquitous vehicle, it's frustrating to find information in English-language sources on the T-72.  Part of this is residual bad information from the Cold War era when all NATO had to go on were blurry photos from May Day parades:
       

       
      As with Soviet aircraft, NATO could only assign designations to obviously externally different versions of the vehicle.  However, they were not necessarily aware of internal changes, nor were they aware which changes were post-production modifications and which ones were new factory variants of the vehicle.  The NATO designations do not, therefore, necessarily line up with the Soviet designations.  Between different models of T-72 there are large differences in armor protection and fire control systems.  This is why anyone arguing T-72 vs. X has completely missed the point; you need to specify which variant of T-72.  There are large differences between them!
       
      Another issue, and one which remains contentious to this day, is the relation between the T-64, T-72 and T-80 in the Soviet Army lineup.  This article helps explain the political wrangling which led to the logistically bizarre situation of three very similar tanks being in frontline service simultaneously, but the article is extremely biased as it comes from a high-ranking member of the Ural plant that designed and built the T-72.  Soviet tank experts still disagree on this; read this if you have some popcorn handy.  Talking points from the Kharkov side seem to be that T-64 was a more refined, advanced design and that T-72 was cheap filler, while Ural fans tend to hold that T-64 was an unreliable mechanical prima donna and T-72 a mechanically sound, mass-producible design.
       
      So, if anyone would like to help make sense of this vehicle, feel free to post away.  I am particularly interested in:
       
      -What armor arrays the different T-72 variants use.  Diagrams, dates of introduction, and whether the array is factory-produced or a field upgrade of existing armor are pertinent questions.
       
      -Details of the fire control system.  One of the Kharkov talking points is that for most of the time in service, T-64 had a more advanced fire control system than contemporary T-72 variants.  Is this true?  What were the various fire control systems in the T-64 and T-72, and what were there dates of introduction?  I am particularly curious when Soviet tanks got gun-follows-sight FCS.
       
      -Export variants and variants produced outside the Soviet Union.  How do they stack up?  Exactly what variant(s) of T-72 were the Iraqis using in 1991?

      -WTF is up with the T-72's transmission?  How does it steer and why is its reverse speed so pathetically low?
       
       
    • By LoooSeR
      Hello, my friends and Kharkovites, take a sit and be ready for your brains to start to work - we are going to tell you a terrible secret of how to tell apart Soviet tanks that actually works like GLORIOUS T-80 and The Mighty T-72 from Kharkovites attempt to make a tank - the T-64. Many of capitalists Westerners have hard time understanding what tank is in front of them, even when they know smart words like "Kontakt-5" ERA. Ignoramus westerners!
       
       
         Because you are all were raised in several hundreds years old capitalism system all of you are blind consumer dummies, that need big noisy labels and shiny colorful things to be attached to product X to be sold to your ignorant heads and wallets, thats why we will need to start with basics. BASICS, DA? First - how to identify to which tank "family" particular MBT belongs to - to T-64 tree, or T-72 line, or Superior T-80 development project, vehicles that don't have big APPLE logo on them for you to understand what is in front of you. And how you can do it in your home without access to your local commie tank nerd? 
       
       
         Easy! Use this Putin approved guide "How to tell appart different families of Soviet and Russian tanks from each other using simple and easy to spot external features in 4 steps: a guide for ignorant western journalists and chairborn generals to not suck in their in-depth discussions on the Internet".
       
       
       
      Chapter 1: Where to look, what to see.
       
      T-64 - The Ugly Kharkovite tank that doesn't work 
       
         We will begin with T-64, a Kharkovite attempt to make a tank, which was so successful that Ural started to work on their replacement for T-64 known as T-72. Forget about different models of T-64, let's see what is similar between all of them.
       
       
       

       
       
         
       
       
      T-72 - the Mighty weapon of Workers and Peasants to smash westerners
       
         Unlike tank look-alike, made by Kharkovites mad mans, T-72 is true combat tank to fight with forces of evil like radical moderate barbarians and westerners. Thats why we need to learn how identify it from T-64 and you should remember it's frightening lines!
       

       
       
       
      The GLORIOUS T-80 - a Weapon to Destroy and Conquer bourgeois countries and shatter westerners army
       
         And now we are looking at the Pride of Party and Soviet army, a true tank to spearhead attacks on decadent westerners, a tank that will destroy countries by sucking their military budgets and dispersing their armies in vortex of air, left from high-speed charge by the GLORIOUS T-80!

      The T-80 shooting down jets by hitting them behind the horizont 
          
×
×
  • Create New...